<p>YOU know guys,
"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the–of–the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not… </p>
<p>There’s been actual television coverage and interviews with troops on this subject. Yes they do go into houses in the middle of the night and yes they have taken the wives of people they are looking for in hopes that they’ll turn themselves in to free their wives. They’ve interviewed troops in the middle of the process. </p>
<p>So it does happen, had happened and continues to happen. Does because it’s Kerry talking about it doesn’t make it false? Are you so busy belittling the messager that you don’t listen? </p>
<p>Don’t you guys read a paper or watch a non fox news channel once in a while?</p>
<p>Thats not the pt, look at what kerry said it and the way he said it. He is essentially painting them to be war crimminals “terrorizing children and kids”, but if what you said is true, and im a little skeptical, its simply a military tactic that should be described as such, but again i am very skeptical that that is what is happening</p>
<p>IMO, the point of the Conan sketch was that the allegedly botched punchline was too absurd to be true…sort of a “no soap elephants” defense (are you old enough to remember that joke?)</p>
<p>I don’t need all those submissive smiley faces, btw–don’t worry, I’m not going to bite you.</p>
Perhaps I spoke too fast about not biting. What a crock. You are accusing our military of taking women hostage. No, they don’t do that, they’re not allowed to do that, doing that would definitely land them in a military prison. What an utterly despicable statement. When a specific house is targeted due to specific intelligence, they do insist on talking to the women, because hiding under burkhas is one of the favored methods of concealment for male terrorists.</p>
<p>I will never understand the mentality of those who constantly insist upon believing the worst about our military in spite of all the evidence. You don’t deserve them, but they’ll keep protecting you like a faithful dog. Remember though, even a faithful dog can tell the difference between being kicked and being stepped on.</p>
<p>he is their commander-in-chief, he essentially has to place his final approval on any kinds of huge military operations. It sort of like asking how does a 4 star general support the troops, but then again what does Bush have to do with John Kerry insulting the American army. You really love to hate Bush. I am beginning to think that if it wasnt for Bush you wouldnt know what to do with youself</p>
<p>Driver, it’s not a case of those in the military being all good or all bad. Bringing attention to practices and actions that some in the military do or have done, and that are wrong, is NOT the same as saying the military is bad, or that all the soldiers are bad. Certainly we can all agree that SOME in the military have done bad things. Abu Ghraib, say? And I have read in the paper of other cases where US soldiers are on trial for killing innocent Iraqis.</p>
<p>To me, it IS part of supporting our military to help stop wrong practices that some may engage in. I remember reading about one soldier, on trial with several others for killing an innocent man in frustration over not finding the actual terrorist they were seeking. He did not approve of what was being done, but felt helpless to stop it. When we act to stop these practices, we protect those many men and women in the service with high ideals and moral values. When we cover up such things and pretend they don’t happen, we allow this to continue and place those with high morals in the position of having to decide whether to go along with something wrong or speak up and perhaps face retribution from those doing the wrong deeds.</p>
<p>(I’m not sure I stated that as clearly as I would have liked to, but I think you can get the general idea, anyway.)</p>
<p>“Are you saying you actually believe Kerry would be dissing the troops like that? C’mon, regardless of what you think about him, it’s just obvious that he respects the actual soldiers - he was a veteran himself!” </p>
<p>RIGHT</p>
<p>KERRY’S TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS 1971 - slandering all our troops in Vietnam</p>
<p>"I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command…</p>
<p>They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."</p>
<p>Bush has everything to do with it…kerry made a bad joke…fine, at least he served, Bush was too chicken to serve when called to duty</p>
<p>And how does he SUPPROT the troops- cuts funding, bad supplies, cuts $$ for vets, people are going back over and over when they were told they were done</p>
<p>It has everything to do with it as Bush talks the talk about suporting the troops, but does little, while Kerry served his country and if his one remark three days ago is more important to you than what Bush is doing to ameircan troops every day for the last 3 years in this war, well, you don’t support the troops either</p>
<p>I don’t see how pointing out the bad is necessarily slandering all of the troops. It’s hard to believe that there weren’t some bad eggs in the basket.</p>
<p>Yes, this war, not fiasco, is Bush’s undertaking in the sense that he led this country into the defense of itself. The war in iraq could be better, there are many mistakes Bush made, but its not a simple situation. On the other hand there are many great things going on Iraq. Other than certain spots of the country the standard of living is rising, people are happier, the economy is better, there is more oil ouput etc…, since you never specified what war i am not gonna stop at iraq, the war in afghanistan is going good. Taliban is gone, al qaida was weakened, although OBL has not been found he is essentially nothing more than a celebrity without real functional value. The afghani people are living under freedom. Their standard of living ecnomy etc has gone up. Ofcourse Afghanistan, like Iraq, is not without problem. There is sometimes energy problems the occasional firefight. Then even larger is the War on Terror which encompasses Iraq, Afghanistan, and political battles going on. That war has been handled great. I really commend President Bush on that. There has not been a single domestic terror attack since 9/11, there have been MANY MANY terror plots foiled in America, and even abroad because of American intelligence like in Canada. Americas great interrogators have gotten alot of valuable information out of terrorists and have saved my life, your life, your mothers life, your daughters life etc through all of that information. But again the war on terror could be better. I would perfer to see more widespread use of racial profiling in identifying possible terrorists, I want to see Bush give a clear definition of our enemy and how we will deal with them instead of the little small steps he took until the congress passed the latest act. Id like to see the patriot act running in full steam. I hope that answers your question about how I think the war or fiasco as you like to call it is going.</p>
<p>What someone did 30 yrs ago is irrelevant. Bush served, Bush didnt serve thats not important it should not reflect on his traits as a president, either should John Kerrys service where he had a cameraman follow him around in a war zone.</p>
<p>Susantm, I really have no problem with what you said, at all. What I objected to was Opie’s suggestion that it was standard military policy to take and hold hostages in order to capture insurgents. Total BS, and a very nasty slur against some very fine people, some of them my people.</p>
<p>"“I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command…”</p>
<p>Um…your point? That’s like saying that someone who points out a few crimes committed by blacks is prejudiced against blacks. Duh. We all know crimes are committed by black, by whites, by hispanics…by EVERY race/subculture. Likewise, crimes are committed by those in the military. This does NOT make Kerry anti-troops!!!</p>
<p>To whoever mentioned my hero Keith Olbermann, yes he did say last night that the Repubs. are too dumb to get that it was bush who was being ridiculed, not the troops. Well not in those exact words, but that’s what I got out of what he said.</p>
<p>And, he DID show some footage prior to the botched joke. To put it in the proper context, Kerry was ridiculing bush prior to that. So this ‘joke’ was an extension of the ridicule of bush.</p>
<p>it was on friggen nightline… they interviewed the leader of squad… the term they used was “detain” the wives back at headquarters in hopes their husbands would come in for questioning. </p>
<p>It was on gawd dam tv driver. I didn’t make it up. For crying out loud why did they release about 2/3 of the abu prisoners? Or am I making that up too? </p>
<p>How did those people get there? by magic? c’mon the kid goaland is one thing, he’s young and a true believer, you’ve been around haven’t you? </p>
<p>While I know they not all sinners, they certainly aren’t all saints either? are they? c’mon are they? </p>
<p>When you go into this head in the sand routine of denial of some of the things going on well… the idea that you are somewhat reasonable even with your conservative pov goes out the window. </p>
<p>Jesus, mary and joseph driver, bad things are done by good people all the time. Denying they ever happen just makes you look foolish, I expected more.</p>
<p>“I really have no problem with what you said, at all. What I objected to was Opie’s suggestion that it was standard military policy to take and hold hostages in order to capture insurgents. Total BS, and a very nasty slur against some very fine people, some of them my peop”</p>
<p>Driver, when these guys were interviewed IT WAS STANDARD POLICY. The officer thought nothing of it and explained what they were doing to the news crew that accompainied them. Jeesse, just cause you didn’t see it, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Maybe after going on air, policy as it often does CHANGES WHEN BROUGHT OUT IN THE LIGHT OF DAY. </p>
<p>That has been the problem with this debacle, so many things have been done in secret that you or I can’t imagine them actually being done. John Wanye (whom I love) would have never done that… I’m sorry you can’t accept that some things that are very unamerican are being done. Or is military prison only for deserters?</p>
<p>Kerry’s testimony made it clear that these atrocities (as he told it) were THE NORM.</p>
<p>A plain reading (or listening) to his testimony clearly indicates he was not describing these as exceptions, and (per Kerry) outweighed any actual or alleged positive acts the military was achieveing in Vietnam. That was his central theme at the time</p>
<p>The constant excuses - that Kerry actually intended something OTHER than what his plain words indicated - are becoming very tiresome</p>
<p>I love your unwavering support. If you’re asked to drink the kool aid, don’t. </p>
<p>In other words you believe too hard, at some point you’re in for a letdown. </p>
<p>Do you hate the muslims so much that you can find justicifaction in every action taken? Everything is so wonderful that Bush has brought us? You sound like Tony Snow up there. How much is too much for you?</p>
<p>Citation didn’t you just cut and paste the same arguement on this post or another? </p>
<p>Was it this post where someone asked why at 19 with the beliefs you have… enlisted? </p>
<p>Besides just don’t vote for Kerry then. </p>
<p>Besides you are 19 years old, you weren’t even around during nam. You have absolutely no idea what the truth is. Sometimes the truth is kept between a five man recon team.</p>
<p>The United States (not unlike Israel) has since 911 been forced into situations where sometimes in reference to major stratetic decisions only 2 choices are offered 1. a bad choice 2. a less bad choice</p>
<p>Many, often on the left, fail to understand the difficulty of these choices</p>
<p>Had Bush not invaded Iraq and Iraq had turned out to have WMD’s and these WMDs were used against the United States - Bush would probably have been impeached. The evidence does show that Saddam actually faked he had WMDs as part of what The Dalfur Report to congress called a “strategic deception” to shore up his power in the region, and instead miscalcuated as to exactly what the United States would do about it. Some Iraqi generals in fact believed Iraq had WMDs.</p>
<p>Bill Clinton and most on the left for years claimed it was FACT that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction - yet all of a sudden find a need to revise history</p>
<p>If the dems win the Congress - no doubt there will be dancing in the streets in regions of the world controlled by islamic terrorists</p>
c’mon the kid goaland is one thing, he’s young and a true believer, you’ve been around haven’t you? </p>